3 ms·

Some people here seem to be seriously confused by anti-SF FUD. These ad-ware loaded installers are not the default. You have to explicitly opt-in. It provides

by copx 13y ago

Some people here seem to be seriously confused by anti-SF FUD. These ad-ware loaded installers are not the default. You have to explicitly opt-in. It provides SF and projects hosted there (a kinda shady) optional way to make money. The FileZilla installer contains ad-ware because the FileZilla developers chose to add it. It is their attempt to make money. I use SF too but none of my projects come with ad-ware installers. One should point out that bundling ad-ware is a common way developers of free (as in beer) software make money in the Windows world.. so SF has not cooked up some nefarious new scheme here.

shadowmint 13y ago
There, fixed that typo for you: One should point out that bundling ad-ware is a common way *morally bankrupt money grabbing* developers of free (as in beer) software ...
bad_user 13y ago
And that's why companies like Apple or Google or Amazon or Microsoft, feel morally justified to lock-in users inside of their curated app stores. It's because of Windows and its ecosystem filled with all the scum this industry has to offer. People pay for valuable software. If people don't want to pay for your software, then it may mean that your software isn't worth paying for. And I can agree with ads loaded inside that software. In my eyes ads are a legitimate way of monetizing software. But pushing extra adware junk down on users' throats, especially plugins for other pieces of software, like browsers? That's taking it a step way too far. And this also hurts developers that are monetizing their apps by serving tasteful ads. Not to mention that it hurts the browser makers - for example my wife wants Chrome, not Firefox, because she doesn't have the expertise to keep her Firefox clean and because Firefox is more open, more extensible, I've never seen a Firefox instance on Windows that's not overloaded with third-party junk. But hey, lets poison the pool for everybody, right? Thanks guys for killing an otherwise viable business model, not to mention the only major browser built by a non-profit.

by copx 13y ago

shadowmint 13y ago

There, fixed that typo for you: One should point out that bundling ad-ware is a common way *morally bankrupt money grabbing* developers of free (as in beer) software ...

bad_user 13y ago

And that's why companies like Apple or Google or Amazon or Microsoft, feel morally justified to lock-in users inside of their curated app stores. It's because of Windows and its ecosystem filled with all the scum this industry has to offer. People pay for valuable software. If people don't want to pay for your software, then it may mean that your software isn't worth paying for. And I can agree with ads loaded inside that software. In my eyes ads are a legitimate way of monetizing software. But pushing extra adware junk down on users' throats, especially plugins for other pieces of software, like browsers? That's taking it a step way too far. And this also hurts developers that are monetizing their apps by serving tasteful ads. Not to mention that it hurts the browser makers - for example my wife wants Chrome, not Firefox, because she doesn't have the expertise to keep her Firefox clean and because Firefox is more open, more extensible, I've never seen a Firefox instance on Windows that's not overloaded with third-party junk. But hey, lets poison the pool for everybody, right? Thanks guys for killing an otherwise viable business model, not to mention the only major browser built by a non-profit.